This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 10, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 5 August 2012. The result of the discussion was Moot no longer a redirect. |
This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 18 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep as a redirect. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
To-do: Updated 2022-01-07
|
@ GreenMeansGoThe first edit(the edit between lines 33 and 40) I can see reverting, but the second edit( the edit after line 40) removes content for no reason. Shadow311 ( talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia should focus on content creation – not social justice campaigns Michael G. Lind ( talk) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Reading some literature, I stumbled upon the paper " Trustworthy maps" in the peer reviewed Journal of Spatial Information Science. I'm looking into how it could be incorporated, but thought I'd share. Relevant text states:
GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 20:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@ HiLo48: Regarding your removal of the following text and supporting source:
Elon Musk has referred to the platform as "Wokipedia", asserting that its neutrality has been compromised by " wokeness". [1]
Over the past several days, Musk has been on a Twitter rant about Wikipedia ( [1], [2], [3]), with some of these tweets being viewed millions or tens of millions of times, and receiving tens of thousands of replies. This is itself a recapitulation of Musk's earlier expression of this opinion, which is documented in reliable sources (I picked the most convenient one). Our inclusion of content is based on the reporting of that content in reliable sources, not any one editor's questioning of whether the sourced content is "of significance". The sources decide that for us, and we don't censor them because the matter reported is attributed to an eccentric figure. BD2412 T 03:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) BD2412 T 03:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Elon Musk has referred to the platform as "Wokipedia", asserting that its neutrality has been compromised by " wokeness". Yes, we include specific criticisms by other people, but what does Musk's "wokipedia" add? I'm not saying it should be omitted; I'm asking if basic trolling like that is the kind of "criticism" this article seeks to summarize in an encyclopedic way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Why exactly is the paragraph However, while the second volume of the report issued by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee
in this article? It essentially says "some people said that someone else did not influence Wikipedia, and some people with a very, very, very long description said that someone influenced something which is not Wikipedia." --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 09:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
It essentially says "some people said that someone else did not influence Wikipedia, and some people with a very, very, very long description said that someone influenced something which is not Wikipedia.Nope. Here's what the content said in reference to Wikipedia:
The reason I do not think it is relevant is that it is not criticism of Wikipedia. ... But trolls are not Wikipedia.Do you think the rest of the content in the "Exposure to political operatives and advocates" and "Commandeering or sanitizing articles" secondary subsections is irrelevant? If so, how is the content that I added different in substance from the rest of the content already included there? Both sections discuss Wikipedia being subject to manipulation by state and non-state actors to further their political interests rather than the project's purpose of creating an encyclopedia. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I wish other people would enter this conversation.This is why I wish there was a committee of editors where individual members regularly respond to third opinion requests and resolve disagreements en banc as a panel upon request for an appeal, but other editors here seem not to agree with me that such a committee is needed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 10, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 5 August 2012. The result of the discussion was Moot no longer a redirect. |
This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 18 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep as a redirect. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
To-do: Updated 2022-01-07
|
@ GreenMeansGoThe first edit(the edit between lines 33 and 40) I can see reverting, but the second edit( the edit after line 40) removes content for no reason. Shadow311 ( talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia should focus on content creation – not social justice campaigns Michael G. Lind ( talk) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Reading some literature, I stumbled upon the paper " Trustworthy maps" in the peer reviewed Journal of Spatial Information Science. I'm looking into how it could be incorporated, but thought I'd share. Relevant text states:
GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 20:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@ HiLo48: Regarding your removal of the following text and supporting source:
Elon Musk has referred to the platform as "Wokipedia", asserting that its neutrality has been compromised by " wokeness". [1]
Over the past several days, Musk has been on a Twitter rant about Wikipedia ( [1], [2], [3]), with some of these tweets being viewed millions or tens of millions of times, and receiving tens of thousands of replies. This is itself a recapitulation of Musk's earlier expression of this opinion, which is documented in reliable sources (I picked the most convenient one). Our inclusion of content is based on the reporting of that content in reliable sources, not any one editor's questioning of whether the sourced content is "of significance". The sources decide that for us, and we don't censor them because the matter reported is attributed to an eccentric figure. BD2412 T 03:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) BD2412 T 03:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Elon Musk has referred to the platform as "Wokipedia", asserting that its neutrality has been compromised by " wokeness". Yes, we include specific criticisms by other people, but what does Musk's "wokipedia" add? I'm not saying it should be omitted; I'm asking if basic trolling like that is the kind of "criticism" this article seeks to summarize in an encyclopedic way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Why exactly is the paragraph However, while the second volume of the report issued by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee
in this article? It essentially says "some people said that someone else did not influence Wikipedia, and some people with a very, very, very long description said that someone influenced something which is not Wikipedia." --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 09:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
It essentially says "some people said that someone else did not influence Wikipedia, and some people with a very, very, very long description said that someone influenced something which is not Wikipedia.Nope. Here's what the content said in reference to Wikipedia:
The reason I do not think it is relevant is that it is not criticism of Wikipedia. ... But trolls are not Wikipedia.Do you think the rest of the content in the "Exposure to political operatives and advocates" and "Commandeering or sanitizing articles" secondary subsections is irrelevant? If so, how is the content that I added different in substance from the rest of the content already included there? Both sections discuss Wikipedia being subject to manipulation by state and non-state actors to further their political interests rather than the project's purpose of creating an encyclopedia. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I wish other people would enter this conversation.This is why I wish there was a committee of editors where individual members regularly respond to third opinion requests and resolve disagreements en banc as a panel upon request for an appeal, but other editors here seem not to agree with me that such a committee is needed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)